Get Started for Free Contexxia identifies hard-to-find pieces of information in SEC filings. No more highlighters, no more redlining, no more poring over huge documents. AES CORP (874761) 10-Q published on May 08, 2018 at 7:14 am
Reporting Period: Mar 30, 2018
The Mong Duong II power plant in Vietnam is the primary driver of changes in revenue recognition under the new standard. This plant is operated under a build, operate, and transfer contract and will be transferred to the Vietnamese government after the completion of a 25-year PPA. Under the previous revenue recognition standard, construction costs were deferred to a service concession asset, which was expensed in proportion to revenue recognized for the construction element over the term of the PPA. Under ASC 606, construction revenue and associated costs are recognized as construction activity occurs. As construction of the plant was substantially completed in 2015, revenues and costs associated with the construction were recognized through retained earnings, and the service concession asset was derecognized. A loan receivable was recognized for the future expected payments for the construction performance obligation. As the payments for the construction performance obligation occur over a 25-year term, a significant financing element was determined to exist which is accounted for
under the effective interest rate method. The other performance obligation to operate and maintain the facility is measured based on the capacity made available.
Generation — Most of our generation fleet sells electricity under contracts to customers such as utilities, industrial users, and other intermediaries. Our generation contracts, based on specific facts and circumstances, can have one or more performance obligations as the promise to transfer energy, capacity, and other services may or may not be distinct depending on the nature of the market and terms of the contract. Similar to our utilities businesses, as the performance obligations are generally satisfied over time and use the same method to measure progress, the performance obligations meet the criteria to be considered a series. In measuring progress toward satisfaction of a performance obligation, the Company applies the "right to invoice" practical expedient when available, and recognizes revenue in the amount to which the Company has a right to consideration from a customer that corresponds directly with the value of the performance completed to date. Revenue from generation businesses is classified as non-regulated on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.
For contracts determined to have multiple performance obligations, we allocate revenue to each performance obligation based on its relative standalone selling price using a market or expected cost plus margin approach. Additionally, the Company allocates variable consideration to one or more, but not all, distinct goods or services that form part of a single performance obligation when (1) the variable consideration relates specifically to the efforts to transfer the distinct good or service and (2) the variable consideration depicts the amount to which the Company expects to be entitled in exchange for transferring the promised good or service to the customer.
The condensed consolidated financial statements of AES are prepared in conformity with U.S. GAAP, which requires the use of estimates, judgments and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenue and expenses during the periods presented.
Revenue Recognition — We recognize revenue to depict the transfer of energy, capacity, and other services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which we expect to be entitled. In applying the revenue model, we determine whether the sale of energy, capacity, and other services represent a single performance obligation based on the individual market and terms of the contract. Generally, the promise to transfer energy and capacity represent a performance obligation that is satisfied over time and meets the criteria to be accounted for as a series of distinct goods or services. Progress toward satisfaction of a performance obligation is measured using output methods, such as MWhs delivered or MWs made available, and when we are entitled to consideration in an amount that corresponds directly to the value of our performance completed to date, we recognize revenue in the amount to which we have the right to invoice. For further information regarding the nature of our revenue streams and our critical accounting policies affecting revenue recognition, see Note 12—Revenue included in Item 1.—Financial Statements of this Form 10-Q.
Pursuant to their environmental audit, AES Sul and AES Florestal discovered 200 barrels of solid creosote waste and other contaminants at a pole factory that AES Florestal had been operating. The conclusion of the audit was that a prior operator of the pole factory, Companhia Estadual de Energia (“CEEE”), had been using those contaminants to treat the poles that were manufactured at the factory. On their initiative, AES Sul and AES Florestal communicated with Brazilian authorities and CEEE about the adoption of containment and remediation measures. In March 2008, the State Attorney of the state of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil filed a public civil action against AES Sul, AES Florestal and CEEE seeking an order requiring the companies to recover the contaminated area located on the grounds of the pole factory and an indemnity payment of approximately R$6 million ($2 million) to the state's Environmental Fund. In October 2011, the State Attorney Office filed a request for an injunction ordering the defendant companies to contain and remove the contamination immediately. The court granted injunctive relief on October 18, 2011, but determined only that defendant CEEE was required to proceed with the removal work. In May 2012, CEEE began the removal work in compliance with the injunction. The removal costs are estimated to be approximately R$60 million ($19 million) and the work was completed in February 2014. In parallel with the removal activities, a court-appointed expert investigation took place, which was concluded in May 2014. The court-appointed expert final report was presented to the State Attorneys in October 2014, and in January 2015 to the defendant companies. In March 2015, AES Sul and AES Florestal submitted comments and supplementary questions regarding the expert report. In June 2016 the Company sold AES Sul to CPFL Energia S.A. and as part of the sale AES Guaiba, a holding Company of AES Sul, retained the liability. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted against it and will defend itself vigorously in these proceedings; however, there can be no assurances that it will be successful in its efforts.
In January 2017, the Superintendencia del Medio Ambiente (“SMA”) issued a Formulation of Charges asserting that Alto Maipo is in violation of certain conditions of the Environmental Approval Resolution (“RCA”) governing the construction of Alto Maipo’s hydropower project, for, among other things, operating vehicles at unauthorized times and failing to mitigate the impact of water infiltration during tunnel construction (“Infiltration Water”). In February 2017, Alto Maipo submitted a compliance plan (“Compliance Plan”) to the SMA which, if approved by the agency, would resolve the matter without materially impacting construction of the project. Thereafter, the SMA made three separate requests for information about the Compliance Plan, to which Alto Maipo duly responded. In April 2018, the SMA approved the Compliance Plan (“April 2018 Approval”). Three lawsuits have been filed with the Environmental Court of Santiago challenging the April 2018 Approval. Alto Maipo does not believe that there are grounds to challenge the April 2018 Approval. Pursuant to the Compliance Plan, Alto Maipo must obtain from the Environmental Evaluation Service (“SEA”) an acceptable interpretation of the RCA’s provisions concerning the authorized times to operate certain vehicles. In addition, Alto Maipo must obtain the SEA’s approval concerning the control, discharge, and treatment of Infiltration Water. If Alto Maipo complies with these and the other requirements of the Compliance Plan, and if the above-referenced lawsuits are dismissed, the Formulation of Charges will be discharged without penalty. Otherwise, Alto Maipo could be subject to penalties, and the construction of the project could be negatively impacted. Alto Maipo will pursue its interests vigorously in these matters; however, there can be no assurances that it will be successful in its efforts.